No Walloon accreditation, no soil expert: a German partner and a promise to ‘associate if need be’ do not save the candidature
SPI did not select Gimmicks to Workflows for its framework agreement for accredited contaminated-soil experts because the company did not hold the required Walloon accreditation — its reply pointed to a German partner and to the possibility of later associating with already accredited structures — and the Council of State dismissed the extreme-urgency application because the petition attacked an irregularity of the tender whereas the decision was one of non-selection.
What happened?
On 19 February 2026 the intercommunal cooperative company SPI adopted specifications for a services contract covering a ‘framework agreement — designation of accredited experts in the management of contaminated soils for carrying out soil studies, monitoring remediation works and drawing up soil quality reports’, to be awarded by open procedure. The contract covered orientation studies, characterisation studies including risk studies, remediation projects, supervision of remediation works, final evaluations and soil quality reports, under the decree of 1 March 2018. The notice appeared on 24 February 2026 on e-Procurement and in the Official Journal of the European Union, followed by a corrigendum. Article I.5 of the specifications required, as the first selection criterion, a copy of the certificate accrediting the bidder as an expert within the meaning of the Walloon Government decree of 27 May 2009 or that of 6 December 2018, together with a copy of the letter by which the SPW notified the grant — the notice specified category 2 accreditation, valid at the date of signature of the contract. The specifications further required a list of the main services of the last three years with five certificates of satisfactory completion (one each for an orientation study, a characterisation study, a combined study, a remediation project and a final evaluation), three CCQTs issued by Walterre, at least one reference file worth 50,000 euros excluding VAT, and a project manager with at least one year’s experience alongside a senior coordinator with at least eight years’ experience who is the person authorised under the accreditation. Fourteen tenders were submitted, including that of Gimmicks to Workflows, filed on 7 April 2026. On 4 May 2026 SPI’s services wrote to it: the accreditation certificate was missing, could it be provided? Its reply of 7 May 2026 effectively conceded the problem. It collaborated with a German company and relied on its specialised technical expertise; it asked SPI for clarification on how that accreditation could be adapted or recognised under Walloon rules, and added that, should its tender be retained, it was ‘not excluded’ that this company would associate with already accredited structures established in Wallonia in order to ensure compliance. On 26 June 2026 SPI approved the tender analysis report and awarded the contract to Universoil SRL, Aries Consultant SA and SGS Belgium SA. By letter of 2 July 2026 the applicant was informed of the award and of the reason for its non-selection: it does not hold the accreditation. On 6 July 2026 it applied for suspension under extreme urgency; the hearing followed on 22 July 2026. The Council first clarified what was actually being challenged: although the petition spoke of a decision ‘declaring its tender irregular and awarding the contract to another bidder’, what was at issue was in fact a decision of non-selection and award — which SPI did not contest and against which it had been able to exercise its procedural rights. That distinction proved decisive. The petition contained no heading for pleas; the argument sat in the urgency section and contended, with quotations from legal writing and from older judgments on technical specifications, that the tender could not be rejected for failing a non-essential prescription. But the tender had not been rejected for irregularity: the applicant had not been selected because it lacked the accreditation, a selection criterion relating to technical and professional capacity. The plea therefore lacked any factual basis. Even on a benevolent reading of the petition, the Council said, the applicant disputed neither the accreditation requirement, nor that it did not hold it, nor that the subcontractor it relied on did not; nor did it explain why the rejection on that basis would be a manifest error of assessment. The formal statement of reasons, finding the required accreditation absent, was sufficient and adequate. The principle of equal treatment was invoked in the statement of facts but not concretely developed, so that it was inadmissible to that extent. Without a single serious plea, the application could not succeed. The Council also refused the request for information — the identity of the contractors, the final ranking and the scores per award criterion — because the administrative file contained the reasoned award decision and the applicant did not dispute at the hearing that this sufficed; the tenders (documents 13 to 26) and the comparative analysis (document 27) remained provisionally confidential. The applicant bears the costs: 200 euros roll fee, 26 euros contribution and 770 euros procedural indemnity for SPI.
Why does this matter?
The judgment sharpens two points. The first is the distinction between selection and regularity. That sounds technical, but it determines which plea you must write. Someone who is not selected because he fails a selection criterion is not rejected for an irregular tender — and the whole reasoning about substantial versus non-substantial irregularities, however correct, then touches no ground of decision at all. The petition contained quotations from legal writing and from judgments on technical specifications; it contained nothing about the accreditation. The Council then need only find that the plea lacks a factual basis. The second point is more substantive and concerns every foreign or new entrant to the Belgian market. An accreditation that the contract requires as a selection criterion is not a quality label you can arrange later: it is a condition of access. The applicant’s reply to SPI — collaboration with a German company, a question about how that accreditation could be adapted to Walloon rules, and the promise that it was ‘not excluded’ that this partner would associate with already accredited structures if the tender were retained — is precisely what does not work. Nor does reliance on a third party’s capacity help when that third party does not hold the accreditation either. That the specifications required the accreditation to be valid only at the date of signature of the contract changes nothing: proving that you are or will be accredited is not the same as hoping to become so. Finally, the judgment illustrates how limited the duty of information is in interim proceedings. The applicant sought the full ranking and the scores per award criterion; the Council found it sufficient that the administrative file contained the reasoned award decision — which is logical for someone already eliminated at the selection stage, for whom those scores are of no use.
The lesson
First establish where you were eliminated: at selection or at the regularity check. Your entire petition depends on that answer. If you were not selected, you must attack the selection decision — dispute the criterion itself, dispute that you fail it, or demonstrate a manifest error of assessment. An argument about substantial versus non-substantial irregularities then touches nothing. If you are a foreign or new entrant: obtain the required accreditations before you submit. A collaboration with a specialised partner, an intention to have an accreditation recognised as equivalent, or a promise to associate ‘if need be’ with an accredited structure are not proof of capacity. If you rely on a third party’s capacity, check that this third party holds the accreditation — that is exactly what was missing here. And mind the wording of your reply to a question from the authority: the reply of 7 May 2026 effectively admitted that the accreditation was absent, and thereby closed the file itself. As a contracting authority, this judgment confirms that a clearly formulated selection criterion with a concrete item of proof — the certificate and the SPW’s grant letter — gives you a short, unassailable statement of reasons: finding the accreditation absent is enough.
Ask yourself
Do you know whether you were eliminated in the qualitative selection or in the regularity check, and are you drafting your plea against the right decision? Do you dispute the selection criterion itself, the finding that you fail it, or the assessment — and do you say so expressly? Do you, or the partner on whose capacity you rely, hold at the moment of submission the accreditations the contract documents require as a selection criterion? Do you realise that an intention to have a foreign accreditation recognised, or to associate later with an accredited structure, does not count as proof of capacity? Do you weigh your answers to the authority’s questions, knowing that they end up in the administrative file and can be used against you? And as a contracting authority: have you required a concrete, verifiable item of proof for each selection criterion?
About this database
The Council of State (Raad van State / Conseil d'État) is Belgium's supreme administrative court. In disputes over public procurement — from contract awards to tenderer exclusions — the Council of State is the final arbiter. The rulings in this database are summarised by TenderWolf in plain language, with practical lessons for tenderers and contracting authorities. View all rulings →